[hpsdr] HPSDR + TAPR + MERCURY

[Bob McGwier]

Gerd:

I am really sorry that this has gone so far off the rails.  Let me try 
to give you the "view from 3048 meters (10000 ft)".

I am not on the TAPR board and I have not been very active in doing 
HPSDR design work but I am a big supporter of both TAPR and HPSDR and I 
am privy to a lot of what goes on.  Rick Hambly and I, two of the senior 
officers  in AMSAT,  have strongly supported both TAPR and HPSDR in this 
endeavor.  HPSDR is officially supported by AMSAT because we asked the 
AMSAT BOD to make it so.  They graciously listened to us and without 
dissent, supported the projects.  The people doing HPSDR design work are 
allowed to use AMSAT design tools, which are approaching a million 
dollars in value if not more ( in other words, worth less every day) and 
AMSAT invested in the outcome of the project by putting up money to help 
TAPR do the first builds.

When this exchange started,  I asked several developers if we should use 
your layout because I knew of the delay in Lyle being able to finish 
because of serious work pressures.  This question was answered quickly 
to me.  I do not believe it has been answered quickly enough to you or 
this group.  I will give you my personal interpretation of events.  I do 
not speak for TAPR or HPSDR.  I am speaking as an individual and 
hopefully one that you and others will listen to and trust that I tell 
you the truth as I see it.  This is not an official statement of any 
kind but I believe it to be the truth. 

BEFORE your effortson Mercury were widely known (if at all),  the future 
of TAPR's efforts on the Mercury board was completely determined and 
TAPR did not even have a controlling voice in it.  Steve's note to the 
HPSDR group was entirely too legalistic for people to read behind the 
words so let me pull back the curtain.

HPSDR is <<NOT>> TAPR.  Steve made that clear.  HOWEVER,  TAPR is bound 
by the licenses granted by the developers.   The individuals involved, 
in support of HPSDR, who have done the design work for Mercury decided 
jointly what the license would be.  They are of the opinion, as 
individual, that the best thing for them to do is to give TAPR the right 
to produce their work.   TAPR gladly accepted this offer since it helps 
them recover the serious costs of taking the risk of spendings thousands 
of Euro's on the boards, parts,  build, etc.  Having spoken directly 
with all of them,  including Phil Covington,  they agree that they 
jointly decided and believe that this is the best approach for all.  THE 
INDIVIDUALS are in control.  Not TAPR.  TAPR is bound by the licenses 
they have granted to it.

Phil Covington,  with whom I have spoken at length about this and whose 
work I support as strongly as possible (professionally, personally,  
etc.) is STILL a strong supporter of the effort.  They all weighed in 
with their opinions that this was THEIR choice and TAPR is following 
their lead.  They believe that all of us are best served by a large 
buy.  TAPR has no interest in profits.  Its mission was, is, and 
continues to be exactly what the TAPR sent here through Steve.  To 
support interesting technical projects.

I feel badly that your feelings have been hurt in this matter.  I do not 
approve of how the answers have been given to you since they are 
absolutely and completely defensible, justifiable,  and lest there be 
any doubt,  supported almost unanimously by the other developers and 
parties to decision making here.  I support the right of the individuals 
involved to license their work ANY WAY THEY CHOOSE.  They have chosen.  
TAPR is bound by their choice.  I claim that TAPR is beyond any possible 
reproach in this.  When the license was placed on the efforts for 
Mercury,  TAPR had not yet been granted access by the parties to produce 
the hardware and this was done LONG before your layout efforts went 
forward.  So, you have addressed your request to the wrong parties.  
Having talked to them, I do not believe that have a reason and should be 
expected to change their original thinking.  I believe things have 
progressed too far.  Lastly, TAPR cannot give you permission to produce 
the boards.  They have no rights to do so.

Bob




Gerd Loch wrote:
> ***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****
>
>
>
>   
>> Please keep in mind that TAPR is run by volunteers and has limited 
>> resources.  TAPR simply cannot take on all projects.  Therefore, the 
>> designs that are more thought out, prototyped, vetted and peer reviewed 
>> will stand the best chance of funding and manufacture by TAPR.  The 
>> ultimate goal we hope for both communities is advancing the radio art.
>>     
>
>
> HOW DOES THIS STATEMENT FIT TO THE FACT THAT TAPR IS NOT GOING TO USE MY
> LAYOUT OF MERCURY? THE MAIN REASON IS TO KEEP ME OUT OF THIS PROJECT!
>
> I HAVE STARTED TO LAYOUT MERCURY BECAUSE I COULD NOT SEE ANY ACTIVITY FOR
> ABOUT A YEAR AND THERE WAS A RUMOR AT LEAST IN MY SURROUNDING THAT HPSDR
> WOULD BE DEAD SINCE PHIL COVINGTON WENT HIS OWN WAY FOR WHATEVER REASONS
> WHICH I DO NOT KNOW.
>
> I HAD OFFERED MY LAYOUT TO TAPR FOR THE AGREEMENT THAT I AM AUTHORIZED TO
> PRODUCE AND SELL A SMALL NUMBER OF BOARDS AT COMPARABLE CONDITIONS BUT TAPR
> WANTS TO DO THE EXCLUSIVE BUSINESS AND IS THEREFORE INVENTING THE WHEEL
> MERCURY-PCB A SECOND TIME!
>
> THAT IS NOT THE BEST WAY IN ORDER TO SUCCEED QUICKLY.
>
> 73, GERD
> DJ8AY
>
> _______________________________________________
> HPSDR Discussion List
> To post msg: hpsdr at hpsdr.org
> Subscription help: http://lists.hpsdr.org/listinfo.cgi/hpsdr-hpsdr.org
> HPSDR web page: http://hpsdr.org
> Archives: http://lists.hpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-hpsdr.org/
>
>   


-- 
AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by
definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan 


 1205847752.0